Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Sydney re-release of 2001...

This is topic The Sydney re-release of 2001... in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000174

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 03-15-2001, 11:21 AM:

I've been VERY busy this week, but meant to post this message about last week's Sydney 2001 re-release.

Firstly, it didn't have a wide release as originally intended, but only went to three theatres for its season. All three are prominent venues that attract large traffic.

Despite the fact that it only went to three screens and did not go wide, all three prints were 35MM. Here's the final irony: all three locations that are showing it have 70MM projection capability!

As Brian Grazer and Ron Howard said on the 'Far and Away' trailer, '35MM is great...but that's still not our movie'. There was a great opportunity this year to show the public what this great film really means but this re-release has not achieved that.

The (independent) theatre I work at decided not to show 2001 as a season with the other three theatres; instead, they will feature selected screenings next month only in 70MM. With only a mediocre response to the re-release, this prompts me to wonder: 1) If the release had taken place right from the start in 70MM and that fact had been pushed, would the response have been different? 2) Will people respond differently to the 70MM presentations next month, or will they feel they have 'already seen it' this month? 3) Is '2001' no longer of much interest to the public as a big-screen concern, and/or is '70MM' a meaningless term to the current generation of movie-goers? Next month's screenings will prove interesting...and as the aforementioned duo would say, 'Now THIS is our movie!'.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-15-2001, 05:33 PM:

Hi Michael

...

As much as I enjoy this movie, I think 2001 has been done to death in this town as was proven by its last dismal outing about 6 years ago. Even with a brand new (albeit crappy registration) print, it failed to bring in an audience.

Will you be running a new 70mm print and does it have mag or dts track? I believe the old print I mentioned above had to be destoyed due to the rights expiring fom the distributor.

------------------
"It's not the years, honey...it's the mileage". Indiana Jones

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 03-15-2001, 07:27 PM:

Michael is mentioning that G R E A T trailer for "Far & Away" - The best 70mm promotion reel since the early rollercoaster ToddAO demo's, if not even better...
But do You recall the disappointment, when feature film "Far & Away" hit the screen with a mix that didn't sound like the trailer at all... ? -Not to talk about the less than pretty pictures.
The budget and the possibility was there to relaunch our number one film format - for the last time, i'm afraid. And it totally failed to convince the flok, because only the people resposible for the trailer - not the film - had seen the light !

/ p.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 03-15-2001, 08:16 PM:

Hi John!

Thanks for the poster! Speaking to the distributor reveals that they have imported one 70MM print, although they were unable to tell me whether it was DTS or mag. Either way, I can't understand why they didn't use it at one of the three locations now showing it...or can I?

Another thing...the newspaper copy proudly heralded that 2001 was showing 'for the first time in digital sound!'. Gee, if only they had shown it in DLP then the ad copy could have said, 'For the first time in digital sound AND picture!'

I did hear another interesting anecdote...apparently the distributor had to insist that it is forbidden to cut out the intermission tag on the new prints.

Oh, dear...

Posted by Stephen Jones (Member # 16) on 03-15-2001, 08:41 PM:

In regards to the new generation of movie goers not knowing about 70mm the same appies to the new generation comming into the booth as well.I was talking about 70mm to a trainee the other day and the release of 2001 as we have it coming to us soon in 35mm.He had not even heard of 70mm let alone see it and the same applied to the other newbies in the booth.So I dug up a piece of 70mm and showed them what it looked like and told them if they want to see it in action to go to the Astor in St Kilda when they show 70mm next (which is often as they can).I always enjoyed working with 70mm, miss those days sigh.
Stephen

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-15-2001, 09:52 PM:

Forbidden to cut it out? OK, then remove it and put it back when you send the print back. It's only 140 mins after all...pretty much your average feature nowadays.

Surely these three aren't running intermissions...are they?

Who's the distributor now?

The fact that you say there is only one 70mm of 2001 would tend to say more the reason you are not running it at the moment. Perhaps someone else has it who was willing to offer the 2day /2night sessions they are demanding?

Daisy...Daisy...(get it...'Peter'?)

------------------
"It's not the years, honey...it's the mileage". Indiana Jones

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 03-16-2001, 12:10 AM:

John: The thing is that no-one in Sydney is running a 70MM print despite the apparent existence of one, so that can't be why we didn't get it, although if we offered them their seasonal terms they may have obliged. The other three are giving them those terms yet they are running 35MM - wierd.

The thing about removing the intermission tag is that Kubrick wanted to have an intermission right after we discover that HAL is lipreading the two astronauts. Removing the same is not quite presenting the film as He had intended. Then again, neither is 35MM projection, which is the main point of my thread.

The distributor is Roadshow, by the way. They certainly went to some trouble and expense by bringing in new trailers, which are excellent, but lack the 70MM push that the original trailer had. The text during the trailer says, 'In 1969, it was ahead of its time. In 2001, its time has come. Still the ultimate trip - just not as sharp as you remember it'. (Well, not the last part anyway).

So it's a huge shame to go to all that trouble and then drop the ball when it comes to the presentation itself. Insult to injury: one of the theatres running it is dead opposite what used to be the Plaza theatre, purpose built for Cinerama. They ran 2001 in single-strip years ago; that was before the site was demolished so it could become a McDonalds.

I don't mean to be a Cassandra, but really...

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 03-16-2001, 03:18 AM:

Leave that intermission in!

The new 70mm print we ran here in Bradford last week was SR mag stripe.

The neg it was printed from still had some scratching and other marks. The restoration budget apparently didn't run to digital retouching.

I hear that the prints for the US release(late Summer?) may be DTS.

BTW we screened the print on the louvred Cinerama screen. Some of those amongst the audience that weren't in the know thought that the visible lines from the over 1000 screen strips were scratches on the print .

We are running the print again in May and are considering doing some of the shows on the flat screen.

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 03-16-2001, 08:07 PM:

Regarding Mr Wilson, Sydney:

Would someone please remove that man's splicer...?

The film was made with an intermission and lots of very special enter-the-act music.

Since when has it become a projectionist's job to edit a film ??

Shame !

/p.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-16-2001, 10:49 PM:

Fine, don't cut it out then. Just do a changeover.

Per, the 35mm prints we ran in 1982 had no entracte music nor overture music attached yet the leaders were still original and had never been spliced.

If it was so important to run this in two parts, why was this print allowed to be made so? Also, it had original cues leading up to the intermission tag, which had been added from different stock.

It runs through just fine without an intermission and these are multiplexes running them...not grand old presentations of yester-year. When Michael gets his hands on the 70mm print, I'm sure it will and should run in two parts, but please get off your soapbox to me about how it should be seen in a crappy little shoebox.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 03-18-2001, 03:55 AM:

Sorry John but surely the aim should be to help bring the " crappy little shoebox" standards up. If we accept that bad presentation is allowable then it just gives owners /managers the chance to let standards slip in other theatres.

Perhaps more letters to distributors reminding them how the print should be shown (as the film maker intended) might help.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-18-2001, 04:51 AM:

I take your point, but my point was...it didn't seem to matter to warners then, so why is it so important to them now? Does Kubrik's death make his film somehow greater than when he was alive?

What can these cinemas do while the overtures are running? They have no curtains to look at...it all seems a bit pointless.

If Warners are going to be such sticklers for this film, then they shouldn't let inferior 35mm prints play in 70mm territories.

------------------
"It's not the years, honey...it's the mileage". Indiana Jones

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 03-18-2001, 10:58 AM:

Please don't edit, cut, modify, scratch, embelish (with large changeover marks) any film, ever. The guy that created the film is trying to tell a story. Each frame of the film has meaning and is a part of the telling of that story. If someone removes part of the film or somehow alters the film, it is changing the story. When I go to a theater, I expect to see the story presented as the creator directed. If I go to a famous film that is supposed to be restored from the original and I see that it's not all there, I get real upset. It's the main reason I don't bother to try to watch movies on commercial TV. Entire sections of story line are removed and the sound track has been modified to the point that all the language that depicts the speakers character is gone and replace with some PC BS. As projectionists our job is to show (and tell) the story with as much fidelity as humanly possible.
Please don't make the film "The projectionist's edition"

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 03-18-2001, 01:05 PM:

I remember we ran "Amadeus" (for 16 months!) with an intermission, although there was no "original" intermission in that film. "Titanic" was also shown here (In 70mm DTS) with an intermission, although Mr. Cameron specifically said "No" to such an idea. It was neccesary to cut the film in two parts, to allow the audience to releave themselves half way.

All the best, Thomas

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 03-18-2001, 01:30 PM:

Do any of you guys out there use the no longer made christie miniwinds. You had to have an intermission on these if your film was longer than 105mins not including trailers. The film would not fit. We have a theater in our chain in North Carolina that use them.. (Randy knows about this one)

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-18-2001, 02:47 PM:

I know of several local theatres that had there prints of Titanic yanked after they were found out to be haveing intermissions (two of which had towers that couldn't hold it all) they were politly remindd of the terms in the rental contract
When i show LOA here at cinesphere in 70 I dim the house to half for the overture leaving the screen wash up
when the intro ends the lights quickly fade to the columbia logo usually to applause in the theatre
The same at intermission callback
It is part of the presentation

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 03-18-2001, 08:01 PM:

Ah, yes! I know them well! They are the ones that I posted the pictures of a while back. They are the ones that have the metal rings around the outside to corral the print.

It's a rather small booth and there's just not enough room to put in full size platters. I suppose we could squeeze them in but given the state of financial affairs this industry is in, buying new equipment isn't high on the list.

They are constantly getting calls when they have to "break" a movie. It doesn't happen often but when it does SOMEBODY calls up and asks questions. Usually nothing comes of it but I have been told that on one occasion the distributor made the manager send him a statement that included the model number and serial number of the platter.

I haven't been around long enough to see them put in an intermission but I wonder why people get so bent out of shape by it. It's just more work that the UB's have to do!